3703 GI/2021

(1201)

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 25]

नई दिल् ली, िुलाई 11—िुलाई 17, 2021 िजनवार/ आषाढ़ 20—आषाढ़ 26, 1943

No. 25]

NEW DELHI, JULY 11—JULY 17, 2021, SATURDAY/ASHADHA 20 –ASHADHA 26, 1943

इस भाग में जभन् न ृष्‍ सं्‍ ा िी िाती िज जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में र ा िा सके

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

कार्मिक, लोक जिका त त ा ृेंिन मंत्राल

(कार्मिक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 2 िुलाई, 2021

का.आ. 444.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)

की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए रािस्ट् ान राज् सरकार, की

अजिसूचना सं. एफ.19(15)गषि-5/2021, दिनांक 31.05.2021, गषि (गष-V) जवभाग, ि ृुर के माध् म से िारी

सम्मजत से, श्री कमलेि प्रिाृत की मषत् ु के संबंि में सिर ाना, बाड़मेर जिला में भारती िण्ड संजिता

(1860 का 45) की िाराएं 307, 332 और 353, आ ुि अजिजन म, 1959 (1959 का 54) की िाराएँ 3 और 25,

स्ट्वाृक औषजि और मनःप्रभावी ृिा ि अजिजन म, 1985 (1985 का 61) की िाराएँ 8, 15 और 18 त ा लोक

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-23072021-228433

CG-DL-W-23072021-228433

1202 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2021/ASHADHA 26, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

संृजत्त नुकसान जनवारण अजिजन म, 1984 (1984 का 3) की िारा 3 के तित ििि मामला एफआईआर

सं. 136/2021, दिनांक 23.4.2021 से संबंजित अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे

संबद्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न

दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार

का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त रािस्ट् ान राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/26/2021-एवीडी-II]

एस. ृी. आर. जत्रृा ी, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2021

S.O. 444.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No. F.19 (15) Home-5/2021 dated 31.05.2021, Home

(Gr.-V) Department, Jaipur, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special

Police Establishment to the whole State of Rajasthan for investigation into the offence(s) relating to case FIR

No. 136/2021 dated 23.4.2021, registered under sections 307, 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code

(45 of 1860), sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), sections 8, 15 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) and section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public

Property Act, 1984 (3 of 1984) at Police Station Sadar, District Barmer, pertaining to death of one Shri Kamlesh

Prajapat and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or

for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/26/2021-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 7 िुलाई, 2021

का.आ. 445.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)

की िारा 5 की उृिारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राज् सरकार, आिेि

सं. सीबीआई 2021/सीआर 134/ृीओएल-2, दिनांक 10.03.2021, गषि जवभाग, मुंबई, के माध् म से िारी सिमजत

से, श्री सुरिीत ित्ता, क्षेत्री का ािल , ईृीएफओ, ाणे में तजनात के जवप द्ध भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988

(1988 का 49) के तित दिनांक 08.03.2021 को की गई जिका त, जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 11.03.2021 को

एक सीबीआई मामला, आरसी-0262021ए0004 ििि की गई िज, से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण त ा ऐसे

अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए

गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों

की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 11.03.2021 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज् में

करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/27/2021-एवीडी-II]

एस. ृी. आर. जत्रृा ी, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2021

S.O. 445.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Maharashtra issued vide Order No. CBI 2021/CR 134/POL-2 dated 10.03.2021, Home

Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 17, 2021/आषाढ़ 26, 1943

1203

Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 11.03.2021) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the

offence(s) arising out of complaint dated 08.03.2021 against Shri Surjit Datta, posted in the Regional Office,

EPFO, Thane under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988); based on which a CBI Case, RC-

0262021A0004 has been registered on 11.03.2021 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or

in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction

or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/27/2021-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 7 िुलाई, 2021

का.आ. 446.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)

सं. सीबीआई 2021/सीआर 188/ृीओएल-2, दिनांक 08.04.2021, गषि जवभाग, मुंबई, के माध् म से िारी

सिमजत से सविश्री/श्री दिलीृ कुमार, आिीष कुमार और एस. एन. रा , जनरीक्षकों, आ कर, मुम्बई, मिाराष्ट्र,

मुम्बई जसटी के जवप द्ध भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) के तित दिनांक 06.04.2021 को की

गई जिका त, जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 08.04.2021 को एक सीबीआई मामला, आरसी-0262021ए0006 ििि

की गई िज, से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ास,

िु्‍प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का

अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर

प्रभाव से दिनांक 08.04.2021 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/28/2021-एवीडी-II)

एस. ृी. आर. जत्रृा ी, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2021

S.O. 446.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Maharashtra issued vide Order No. CBI 2021/CR 188/POL-2 dated 08.04.2021, Home

Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 08.04.2021) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the

offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 06.04.2021 against S/Shri Dilip Kumar, Ashish Kumar and

S.N. Rai, Inspectors, Income Tax, Mumbai, Maharashtra, Mumbai City under the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (49 of 1988); based on which a CBI Case, RC-0262021A0006 has been registered on 08.04.2021 and any

attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other

offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/28/2021-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 7 िुलाई, 2021

का.आ. 447.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)

की िारा 5 की उृिारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए झार ंड राज् सरकार,

अजिसूचना सं. 10/सीबीआई/-403/2021-978 रांची, दिनांक 19.02.2021, गषि, कारा एवं आृिा प्रबंिन

जवभाग, रांची, के माध् म से िारी सिमजत से, श्री अजभिीत िास, क्षेत्र अजभ ंता (ई एवं एम), मुग्मा क्षेत्र, ईसीएल

के जवप द्ध भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) के तित दिनांक 10.02.2021 को की गई

जिका त, जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 20.02.2021 को एक सीबीआई मामला, आरसी-1(ए)/2021-डी ििि की गई

1204 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2021/ASHADHA 26, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

िज, से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा

और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण

करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव से

दिनांक 20.02.2021 से) समस्ट्त झार ंड राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/29/2021-एवीडी-II)

एस. ृी. आर. जत्रृा ी, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2021

S.O. 447.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Jharkhand issued vide Notification No. 10/C.B.I.–403/2021-978 Ranchi dated 19.02.2021,

Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Department, Ranchi, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of

the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 20.02.2021) to the whole State of

Jharkhand for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 10.02.2021 against Shri

Abhijit Das, Area Engineer (E & M), Mugma Area, ECL under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of

1988); based on which a CBI Case, RC-1(A)/2021-D has been registered on 20.02.2021 and any attempt,

abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/29/2021-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 7 िुलाई, 2021

का.आ. 448.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)

सं. सीबीआई 2021/सीआर 22/ृीओएल-2, दिनांक 20.01.2021, गषि जवभाग, मुंबई, के माध् म से िारी सिमजत

से, श्री ए.के. जमश्रा, कजनष्ठ अजभ ंता (स्ट् ानाृन्न एिीई), सजन् इंिीजन री सेवा, करंिा नौसेना स्ट्टेिन, एनएडी,

करंिा, रा गढ़ के जवप द्ध भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) के तित दिनांक 12.01.2021 को

की गई जिका त, जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 20.01.2021 को एक सीबीआई मामला, आरसी-0262021ए0001

ििि की गई िज, से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ास,

प्रभाव से दिनांक 20.01.2021 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/30/2021-एवीडी-II)

एस. ृी. आर. जत्रृा ी, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2021

S.O. 448.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Maharashtra issued vide Order No. CBI 2021/CR 22/POL-2 dated 20.01.2021, Home

Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 20.01.2021) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the

offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 12.01.2021 against Shri A.K. Mishra, Junior Engineer (officiating

AGE), Military Engineering Services, Karanja Naval Station, NAD, Karanja, Raigad under the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988); based on which a CBI Case, RC-0262021A0001 has been registered on

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 17, 2021/आषाढ़ 26, 1943

1205

20.01.2021 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s)

and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/30/2021-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 7 िुलाई, 2021

का.आ. 449.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)

की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए गषि जवभाग, मुबई के आिेि

सं. के.अ.ब् ूरो 2021/सीआर 239/ृीओएल-2 दिनांक 20.05.2021 के माध् म से िारी मिारा्‍ र राज् सरकार की

सिमजत से संृिा प्रबंिक का ािल के अज्ञात अजिकाठर ों/कमिचाठर ों को भ्र्‍ ट एवं अवजि तरीके से प्रभाजवत करने

िेतु श्री संि सानृ, गजर सरकारी व् जि के जवप द्ध दिनांक 12.5.2021 के जिका त से उत् ृन् न जिसके आिार ृर

भ्र्‍ टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) के तित दिनांक 21.5.2021 को के.अ.ब् ूरो मामला

सं. आरसी 0262021ए0008 ििि दक ा ग ा िज, (दिनांक 21.5.2021 से का ोत् तर प्रभावी) से उत् ृन् न अृराि(िों)

का अन्वेषण करने के जलए त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े त ा/अ वा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा

एवं/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण

करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट् त मिारा्‍ र

राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/31/2021-एवीडी-II)

एस. ृी. आर. जत्रृा ी, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2021

S.O. 449.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Maharashtra issued vide Order No. CBI 2021/CR 239/POL-2 dated 20.05.2021, Home

Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 21.05.2021) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the

offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 12.05.2021 against Shri Sanjay Sanap, private person under the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) for influencing unknown officer/official of the office of the

Estate Manager, Mumbai by corrupt or illegal means; based on which a CBI Case, RC-0262021A0008 has been

registered on 21.05.2021 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such

offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the

same facts.

[F. No. 228/31/2021-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 7 िुलाई, 2021

का.आ. 450.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म,1946 (1946 का 25)

की िारा 3 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए जनम्नजलज त अृरािों, जिन का अन्वेषण दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों द्वारा भी दक ा िाने वाला िज, को जवजनर्ििष्ट करती िज, नामतः :-

(क) केरल ृुजलस अजिजन म, 2011 (2011 की राज् अजिजन म सं. 8) के अंतगित िण्डनी अृराि;

( ) उृ ुि

उजल्लज त अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र

एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकन्िीं अन् अृराि(िों)।

[फा. सं. 228/09/2021-एवीडी-II)

एस. ृी. आर. जत्रृा ी, अवर सजचव

1206 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2021/ASHADHA 26, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2021

S.O. 450.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby specifies the following offences which are also to be

investigated by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, namely :-

(a)

Offences punishable under the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (State Act No. 8 of 2011);

(b)

any attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with above mentioned

offence(s) and/or for any other offence(s) committed in the course of the same transaction or arising

out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/09/2021-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2021

-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dsujk cSad ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 141@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-07-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12011@03@2015-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2021

S.O. 451.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 141/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara

Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.07.2021.

[No. L-12011/03/2015-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 141/2015

Date of Passing Award- 16^th June, 2021

Between:

The General Secretary,

Delhi Labour Union, Agarwal Bhawan,

G.T Road, Tis Hazari,

Delhi-110054.

… Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Canara Bank, Circle Office, Nehru Place,

New Delhi.

… Management

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 17, 2021/आषाढ़ 26, 1943

1207

Appearances:-

Shri Rajiv Agarwal (A/R) : For the Workman.

Shri Rajat Arora (A/R)

: For the Management

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute

existing between employer i.e. the management of Canara Bank, and its workman/claimant herein, under clause

(d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter

No. L- 12011/03/2015 (IR(B-II) dated 04.03.2015 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

“Whether the demand of the Union to provide Shri Virender Singh son of deceased workman Late

Shri Ratan Singh, Daftri Employment on compassionate ground is legal and/or justified and, if yes

what relief is the claimant entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?’’

The claimant, in his claim statement has stated that his father late Ratan Singh was working as a Daftri

in the Management Bank and he was a permanent employee of the Bank. On 10.11.2010, when he was posted

in the Hari Nagar Branch died leaving behind his wife, two sons and a daughter. Since Late Ratan Singh was the

sole bread earner of the family and none of his legal heirs were having any alternate source of income, his wife

and mother of the claimant on 14.12.2010, submitted an application to the management Bank requesting

appointment of her son Virender, present claimant, in the Bank on compassionate ground. But the Management

of the Bank turned down the said request on the ground that the policy for compassionate appointment has been

discontinued. Two communications dt 5.3.2011 and 25.5.2011 in this regard were received by the mother of the

claimant. Since the family of the claimant were fully dependent on the income of his father Ratan Singh, and the

management in an arbitrary manner rejected the prayer for compassionate appointment, the claimant and his

family approached the Delhi Labour Union, which espoused the grievance and cause of the claimant. A demand

notice was duly served on the management, but no response was received. The claimant thereafter raised a

dispute before the Labour Commissioner Delhi, leading to a conciliation proceeding. The management of the

Bank, though participated, no fruitful decision could be arrived for the adamant stand of the Bank. On failure of

conciliation, the appropriate Government referred the matter to this Tribunal for adjudication on the legality of

the refusal of the Bank for appointment of the claimant on compassionate ground.

The claimant has further stated that the Bank adopted a double standard in this regard as other persons

standing in the same footing have been extended the benefit of compassionate appointment. Describing the

decision of the Bank as illegal and unjustified, the claimant has prayed for a direction to the Bank for giving him

compassionate appointment on any suitable post on regular basis with proper scale of pay.

The management Bank on receipt of notice entered appearance and filed a written statement refuting

the claim of the claimant for compassionate appointment. It also challenged the maintainability of the

proceeding on the grounds that the claimant is not a workman under the definition of sec 2(s) of the I D Act and

the dispute is not an Industrial Dispute as defined u/s 2(k) of the Act. Management has also challenged the

authority of the Delhi Labour Union to espouse the cause of the claimant as he is neither a member of that union

nor the said union represents the employees of the Respondent Bank.

With regard to the claim for compassionate appointment, it has been stated that the Bank has a scheme

for payment of lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment brought into operation by way of

Bank’s circular 35/2005 dt 14.2.2005. Again by circular no 26/2/2007 dated 24.9.2007, the Bank brought some

modifications wherein two exceptions were carved out for compassionate appointment. The application for

compassionate appointment submitted by the wife of the ex-employee was considered and rightly rejected by

the management as the claim was not meeting the criterion set out in the said circular. The family of the

deceased employee was thus advised to submit the application for consideration of the same for grant of ex

gratia. But the mother of the claimant did not submit the application within the time stipulated for the same. The

management has therefore prayed for rejection of the claim.

In the rejoinder to the written statement filed by the claimant, it has been stated that for the purpose of

compassionate appointment, the legal heir of the workman is a workman as per the definition given under the

Act.

On these rival pleadings the following issues were framed by order dated 26.10.16 for adjudication.

ISSUES

Whether the demand of the union to provide Virender Singh s/o deceased daftari of the Bank,

employment on compassionate ground is legal and/or justified? If so it’s effect.

To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date.

1208 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2021/ASHADHA 26, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The claimant Virender Singh testified as ww1 and proved some documents marked in the series of

Exht. WW1/1 to Exht. WW1/10. The documents include the copies of the demand notice served on the bank,

claim petition filed before the labour commissioner, copy of the espousal by the union, copies of the

representations filed before the management and the replies received from the Bank Management. The claimant

also examined Surrender Bharadwaj the General Secretary of the Union which has espoused the cause of the

claimant. He proved the letter of espousal as Exht WW1/4. On behalf of the Management Subodh Kumar

Assistant General Manager testified as MW1 and proved the circulars /scheme of the Bank with regard to

compassionate appointment and payment of lumpsum amount in lieu of such appointment. The documents were

marked as Ext MW 1/1 to MW 1/2. All the witnesses were cross examined at length by the adversary.

FINDINGS

Issue No. 1

No separate issue relating to the maintainability of this proceeding has been framed. But the same can

very well be dealt and decided in this issue. The maintainability of the present proceeding has been challenged

by the management Bank on two grounds i.e the present dispute is not an Industrial Dispute and the claimant is

not a workman.

It would be profitable to refer to sec 2(k) of the I D Act which reads:-

“Industrial Dispute means any dispute or difference between employer and employees, or between

employer and workman, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of

employment, or with the conditions of labour, of any person.”

This definition of sec 2(k) has three components and it refers to the (I) real or substantial dispute which

includes employment or non employment, (2)terms of employment and(3) condition of labour of any person.

As far as the third part is considered the import of the words “any person” was considered by the

Hon’ble SC in the case titled Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea estate VS The management of Dimakuchi Tea

Estate, AIR 1958 SC 853, and it was held:-

“The crucial test is one community of interest and the person regarding whom dispute is raised must be

one in whose employment, non employment, terms of employment or condition of labour, (as the case

may be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or substantial interest. Whether such substantial interest

has been established or not, will depend on the facts of that case”

Not only that in the case of Anjilamma and Others vs Labour Court III, reported in

1995(2)ALT683, The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh have held that:-

“The legal heirs of a deceased workman can raise a dispute before the labour court disputing the

termination of service as illegal u/s 2 A of the ID Act. It is not necessary that such legal heir should be

a workman within the meaning of sec 2(s) of the ID Act.”

In the present case, the dispute is regarding the non-employment of the claimant , the legal heir of a

deceased workman and the reference was made at the instance of the union espousing the cause of that workman

which has been proved by the oral evidence of WW2 and the document marked Ext WW1/4. Hence it can be

concluded that the claim raised by the claimant is certainly in the interest of other workmen and the proceeding

is maintainable.

The other important question which needs to be answered in this proceeding is about the eligibility of

the claimant for compassionate appointment in the Bank. The undisputed facts are that the claimant is the son of

the deceased employee of the Bank working as a permanent employee in the post of Daftari. He died on

10.11.2010 and his wife within almost one month i.e on 14.12.2010, submitted an application requesting

compassionate appointment her son, the claimant of the present proceeding. It is not disputed by the

management that the said prayer of the widow of the claimant was rejected on the ground that the Bank has no

such scheme for compassionate appointment in force and the previous scheme has been substituted by the

scheme for grant of lumpsum financial grant.

The letter of request by the mother of the claimant and reply given by the Bank have been placed on

record as Exht. WW1/7, WW1/8 and WW1/9. The Management in the WS has referred to two circulars of the

Bank dated 14.2.2005 and 24.9.2007 and the witness examined on it’s behalf proved the said circulars along

with the scheme for compassionate appointment as MW 1/1,MW1/2. On the basis of these circulars, the learned

AR representing the Bank argued that the claimant having not fulfilled the criterion mentioned in the scheme

and the related circular which is in force till now the Management had rightly rejected the prayer of the mother

of the claimant. He also submitted that the circular dated 24.9.2007 has superseded the earlier circular of

14.2.2005 and the later circular has set out only two circumstances where compassionate appointment is

possible. He also submitted that the said circular has been brought under operation keeping in view the business

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 17, 2021/आषाढ़ 26, 1943

1209

objectives of the Bank as well as the social obligation towards the family of the employee dying in harness.

Thus provision has been made for payment of lumpsum exgratia in lieu of compassionate appointment. He also

drew the attention of the Tribunal to the document marked as Ext WW1/9 and WW1/10 to submit that the Bank

had considered the case of the claimant sympathetically and advised for submission of application for payment

of lumpsum exgratia. The mother of the claimant having not filed the application within the stipulated time of

six months has also forfeited the claim for the same. With regard to the misery faced by the family for the

untimely death of claimant’s father he argued that the family is drawing a family pension paid by the Bank.

The learned AR for the claimant counter argued that the Bank has extended the benefit to the legal

heirs of other employees who made the application later but refused the prayer of the claimant. No document or

any other kind of evidence has been placed on record by the claimant to prove the same.

Perusal of the circulars and scheme for compassionate appointment filed by the Bank shows that prior

to 24.9.2007, the scheme and circular dated 14.2.2005 was in force. According to the said scheme there was

provision for compassionate appointment as well as payment of exgratia lumpsum amount, when an employees

dies in harness. But the said scheme was brought under some change by the circular and scheme dated

24.9.2007, which has been made retrospectively applicable w.e.f 31.7.2004. According to this scheme, only the

legal heirs of the employee dying while performing official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or

dacoity or the employee dying within five years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years

whichever is later. The said scheme has the provision for grant of lumpsum exgratia subject to the eligibility

prescribed under the scheme. All other conditions for grant of exgratia stipulated under the scheme dated

14.2.2005 remained unchanged. According to the said scheme of 2005, the application for exgratia need to be

filed within six months from the death of the employee by his legal heirs. Thus the learned AR for the Bank

argued that the claimant is neither entitled to compassionate appointment nor for grant of exgratia.

On a careful perusal of the scheme framed by the Indian Banks Association, it clearly appears that the

claimant is not eligible for compassionate appointment, but is entitled to the payment of exgratia lumpsum

amount. His eligibility has been admitted by the management in the written statement filed. It is also evident

from the correspondence made by the Bank to the mother of the claimant marked as Exht. WW1/9 and WW1/10

that at one point of time Bank had advised her to file the application for consideration of the same. It is true that

no application was filed within the time stipulated under the scheme. But the same will not put the claimant and

his family into a disadvantageous position as the omission in filing the application cannot be viewed as

intentional but for the pending claim for compassionate appointment and the hope for materialization of the

same.

For the foregoing discussions it is held that the claimant is not entitled to the compassionate

appointment as prayed by him. Issue no 1 is accordingly answered against the claimant.

Issue No. 2

The claimant has prayed for a direction to the Bank for his compassionate appointment for the untimely

death of his father while in service of the Bank. But in the preceding paragraphs, while answering issue no 1 it

has been held that the claimant is not entitled for the same.

In a catena of decisions including the case of Bharat Bank Ltd. Delhi VS Employees of Bharat Bank

Ltd, it has been held that the scope of Industrial Adjudication is much wider than the adjudication before the

common law courts. In the case of Cawnpur Tannery VS Guha(1961)IIL.L.J110, it has been held that the

''The adjudication by the Industrial Dispute Act is only an alternative form of settlement of Industrial Dispute on

a fair and just basis. The primary duty of the Industrial Tribunal is to establish peace between the employer and

the workman. Any unfair action by the Management even against an individual workman might cast it’s shadow

on the general body of workers who might get perturbed by such action. A resolution of the dispute might then

become necessary for industrial peace”.

Keeping the said principle in view it is felt proper that the benefit of exgratia lumpsum amount as per

the scheme of 2007 be extended to the claimant notwithstanding the fact that the application for the same has

not been filed within the stipulated time as the omission for the same was not deliberate but for the reason that

the family was praying for the compassionate appointment and hoping for a favourable decision, On such

application filed, the Bank shall pay the exgratia lumpsum amount as per the scheme to the legal heirs of the

deceased employee Ratan Singh. This issue is accordingly answered. Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The reference be and the same is answered in favour of the claimant in part. The claimant is held not

entitled to compassionate appointment as prayed for. But it is held that the legal heirs of the deceased employee

Ratan Singh, who died on 10.11.2010. While working as a daftari in the Bank are entitled to payment of

lumpsum exgratia amount as per the scheme of 2007, which was in force at the time of death of the employee.

The claimant is thus directed to file the application for payment of exgratia before the Bank Management within

1210 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2021/ASHADHA 26, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

one month from the date of notification of this Award and the Management of the Bank shall complete the

procedure for payment within two months failing which the amount payable shall carry interest @ 9% per

annum from the date of passing the Award till final payment is made.

Consign the record as per Rule. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for

notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh 9 tqykbZ] 2021

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 100@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-07-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12011@65@2011-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2021

S.O. 452.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 100/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.07.2021.

[No.-L-12011/65/2011 IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/100/2012

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S. ( Retd)

The General Secretary

Dainik Vetan Bhogi

Bank Karmachari Sangathaan

CCentral Office, F-1, Karmbhoomi,

Tripti Vihar, Opp. Engineering College

Ujjain (M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The Managing Director,

Bank of India,

Head Office, Star House,

Bandra Kurlae

Mumbai

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 25^th day of June-2021)

As per letter dated 18/9/2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per

Notification No.L-12011/65/2011-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 17, 2021/आषाढ़ 26, 1943

1211

“Whether the demand of the Union for payment of bonus for the period from 1995-96 to 2008-2009

in respect of Sh. Jagdish Parihar is just and proper? If yes, what relief the workman concerned is

entitled to? .”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the sides have

filed their respective claim/defense.

The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was engaged by Management

Bank as a daily wager on the post of peon under an oral order by the then Branch Manager on 23-11-1993 and

remained engaged till 4-3-2009, when his engagement was discontinued without notice or compensation. He

worked 240 days in every year. He is entitled for bonus as per law for the period he worked but the Management

refused to pay him bonus. He raised a dispute before the Regional Commissioner. After failure of conciliation,

the reference has been sent to this Tribunal for Award. Accordingly, it has been prayed that he be held entitled

to bonus for the year 1995 to 1996 to 2008-2009.

The Management, in its statement of defence has rebutted the claim of applicant with a case that he was

never engaged against any vacancy. He was not appointed as per Rules by a Competent Authority. He was

simply a daily wager engaged on casual basis as and when required for bringing diesel for generator set, for

washing the dirty linens, for which he was paid on daily basis. He is not a worker of the Management Bank nor

there exists any relationship of worker and employer between the parties. He is not entitled to bonus.

Accordingly, it has been prayed that the Award be answered against the workman.

Both the parties have filed photocopy of documents, and proved it, which will be referred to as and

when required. Arguments of representative of applicant and learned counsel for the Management has been

heard by me. I have also gone through the record.

Following are the points for determination, in the case in hand:-

‘‘Whether there is any relationship of workman and employer between the parties.”

‘‘Whether the applicant is entitled to bonus as per Section 8 of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.”

‘‘Whether the workman is entitled to any other relief.”

6. POINT NO. 1:-

In his statement of claim, claimant has pleaded that he was engaged as peon on daily wages. 2^nd party

in its written statement also contends that claimant was intermittently engaged on daily wages. Workman is

defined under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act,1947 as under:-

“workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any

manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,

whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding

under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been

dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or

whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such

person-

who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950),

or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or

who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six

hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the

office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.

In written statement filed by Management, any ground are not pleaded that claimant is taken out of

scope of Section 2(s) as working daily wage peon is manual unskilled work. Workman in his evidence has

stated that he was engaged as peon initially in 1^st spell from 23-11-83 to 1990 and 2^nd spell from 23-11-93 to

4-3-09. In his cross examination, he says he was working during leaving period of regular employees. For

above reasons, I record my finding on Point No.1 in affirmative.

8. POINT NO. 2:-

Section 8 of Payment of Bonus Act,1965 requires to be referred here which reads as follows:-

Section 8 in The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965:

1212 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2021/ASHADHA 26, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Eligibility for bonus.—Every employee shall be entitled to be paid by his employer in an accounting year,

bonus, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, provided he has worked in the establishment for not

less than thirty working days in that year.

Hence the claim for eligibility of bonus, the workman has to prove firstly that he was employee of the

management and secondly he worked in the Management for a period not less than 30 working days in a year.

10.

Section 2(13) defines employee for the purposes of the Act which reads as follows:-

Section 2 (13) of the Principal Act states that, "employee" means any person (other than an

apprentice) employed on a salary or wage not exceeding ten thousand rupees per mensem in any industry to

do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, managerial, administrative, technical or clerical work for

hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied.

11.

In the light of findings in point No.1, the applicant is held to be an employee for the purposes of

Payment of Bonus Act,1965.

12.

Now the point which requires to be proved is whether the workman could successfully prove his

employment for a period of not less than 30 days in a year for this, there is on record statement on oath of the

workman which has been rebutted by statement of Management witness on oath. The workman has filed and

proved some photocopy documents. It is worth mentioning here that some documents were sought by the

workman to be summoned from the custody of Management but Management claimed that these documents

were not available as these are old records.

13.

The photocopy documents regarding payment of the workman are mainly payment vouchers which

show payment for cleaning and fetching diesel on day to day basis but these documents taken together do not

show that the workman was engaged for a period of more than 30 days in a year. Moreover, these photocopy

documents are not from proper custody as the workman is not entitled to get these documents, hence the fact

that the workman worked for a period of more than 30 days in any year to be eligible for bonus is held not

proved on the basis of evidence on record. Accordingly the workman is held not entitled to the bonus claimed.

Point No. 2 is answered accordingly.

14.

POINT NO. 3:-

On the basis of the findings above, the workman is held entitled to no relief and the reference deserves

to be answered against the workman. Accordingly point No.3 is answered.

15.

On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

The demand of the Union for payment of bonus for the period from 1995-96 to 2008-2009 in

respect of Sh. Jagdish Parihar is not just and is improper. .”

The workman is held entitled to no relief.

16.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as

per rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2021

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 56@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-07-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12011@155@2008-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II½

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 17, 2021/आषाढ़ 26, 1943

1213

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2021

S.O. 453.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.07.2021.

[No. L-12011/155/2008-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

EFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/56/2009

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

The General Secretary

Prathadit Karmchari Kalyan Manch,

F-1, Tripti Vihar,

Opp. Engineering college

Ujjain (MP)

…Workman

Versus

The Branch Manager,

Bank of India

Mandsour Branch

Mandsour (MP)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 30^th day of June-2021)

As per letter dated 26-3-2021 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per

Notification No.L-12011/155/2008-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether Shri Gopal Makwana is entitled for payment of difference of wages for the period from

17/2/97 to 24/7/01 as per Bipartite Settlement? What relief he is entitled to? .”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was appointed as a daily wager

on 17-2-1997 and since then he has been working till 24-7-2001, when he was dis-engaged by Management

under oral orders. He used to work for eight hours in a day in the Branch and was earlier paid Rs.700/-per

month which was increased from time to time. He raised a dispute regarding his illegal dis-engagement. The

reference case in this respect is pending before this Tribunal. According to the workman the different Bi-Partite

Settlements were enforce during the period of his engagement as mentioned in para-4 of the statement of claim,

but he was not paid wages according to those Settlements, hence he is entitled to be paid the difference in

wages and has accordingly claimed the difference of wages.

According, to the Management, the workman was employed as a daily wager for some hours, subject to

contingency of work. He was paid on daily basis. He himself abandoned his engagement. The Bi-Partite

Settlements regarding salary and pay are for regular employees of the Bank and not for daily wagers, hence the

workman is not entitled to be paid any difference of wages, as claimed by him.

The workman has filed photocopy of documents which were not admitted by the Management. The

Workman has also filed certified copy of his statement in the concerned reference case, certified copy of

statement of Mahendra Singh in the concerned reference case, certified copy of reference in the concerned

reference case, certified copy of order of Hon’ble High Court, Indore Bench. The Management has not filed any

documents. None of the parties have examined any witness in support. Arguments of learned Counsel for

Management Shri A.K.Shashi was heard through video conferencing. The workman has been absenting himself

since dates. He was not present on the date of argument. He has not filed any written argument also.

1214 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2021/ASHADHA 26, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Reference is the point for determination , in the case in hand.

The certified copy of documents relating to the reference case are not relevant to the case in hand. The

case of the Management is that Bi-Partite Settlement is applicable to the regular employees of the Bank and not

to the daily wagers. No Rule has been shown or indicated by the workman that the settlement is applicable to

the daily wagers also, hence in such circumstances, the workman is held not entitled to any difference of wages

being a daily wager.

On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The workman Shri Gopal Makwana is not entitled for payment of difference of wages for the

period from 17/2/97 to 24/7/01 as per Bipartite Settlement.”

B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as

per rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2021

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 139@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-07-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12011@36@2012-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th July 2021

S.O. 454.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 139/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.07.2021.

[No. L-12011/36/2012-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/139/2012

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

The Secretary,

Rashtriyakrit Bank Karmachari Sanghthan

Kendriya Karyalaya F-1, Tripti vihar

Opp. Engineering College,

Ujjain (M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The Managing Director,

Bank of India, Head Office, Star House,

C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra (E), Mumbai-51.

… Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 28th day of June-2021)

As per letter dated 3-12-2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per

Notification No. L-12011/36/2012-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 17, 2021/आषाढ़ 26, 1943

1215

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in imposing the punishment of

compulsory retirement on Shri Devendra Mehar Ex-Sub Staff w.e.f. 29-12-2009 is legal and

justified? What relief the concerned is entitled to ? .”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties

have filed their respective claim/defence.

The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was first appointed on

23-12-1988 against the permanent vacancy of Peon and has been doing his job with sincerity and highest

integrity. He was absent on 22-3-2007, 28-3-2007, 2-4-2007, 3-4-2007, 10-4-2007 to 13-4-2007 total eight days

due to heart ailment. He furnished information regarding his absence by way of telephonic communication to

the Branch Manager of the Branch. He was issued a show cause notice dated 17-4-2007. He filed a reply

detailing the reasons of his absence. Again he was absent from duty on 21-4-2007 and 25-4-2007 to 30-4-2007

and 11-5-2007 to 30-5-2007, 1-6-2007 to 13-6-2007, 15-6-2007 to 29-6-2007. He explained his absence for this

period also on the ground of his heart ailment along with treatment papers. He was never in receipt of any

departmental charge sheet. An ex-parte departmental inquiry was conducted against him and he was held guilty

of habitual, unauthorized and willful absence in an ex-parte manner. He did send a reply of the show cause

notice on the inquiry report. He was issued the impugned punishment of compulsory retirement in a an illegal

manner, because the inquiry conducted was not according to law, rather it was against the principles of natural

justice, as he was not participating in the inquiry. The Disciplinary authority did not consider his explanation in

his show cause on inquiry report and passed impugned punishment which is against law. The Appellate

authority also did the same mistake, as it also passed order dismissing the appeal without hearing the workman,

hence according to the workman, the departmental inquiry was against law and justice. The charges were not

proved and the punishment was dis-proportionate to the charges. Accordingly, the workman has prayed for his

reinstatement with back wages and all consequential benefits, setting aside the impugned order of compulsory

retirement.

The case of the Management is that the workman is habitual absentee . He remains absent without any

cause, without getting the leave sanctioned. The details of his absence on various occasions mentioned in

paragraph-5 of the written statement, which is as follows:-

S.No.

Period

Days

22.3.2007 and 28-3-2007

2 days

2.4.2007 to 3.4.2007

2 days

10-4-2007 to 13-4-2007

4 days

21-4-2007

1 day

25-4-2007 to 30-4-2007

6 days

11-5-2007

1 days

3-5-2007

1 day

1-6-2007

1 day

11-6-2007 to 13-6-2007

3 days

10.

15-6-2007 to 29-6-2007

15 days

11.

7-8-2007

1 day

12.

22-8-2007

1 day

13.

28-8-2007 to 30-8-2007

3 days

14.

5-9-2007

1 day

15.

11-9-2007 to 13-9-2007

3 days

16.

17-9-2007

1 day

17.

20-9-2007 to 21-9-2007

2 days

18.

1-10-2007 to 3-10-2007

3 days

19.

8-10-2007 to 10-10-2007

3 days

20.

11-9-2007 to 13-9-2007

3days

21.

15-10-2007

1 day

22.

18-10-2007 to 19-10-2007

2 days

23.

23-10-2007

1 day

24.

31.10.2007 to 3-11-2007

4 days

25.

8-11-2007 to 15-11-2007

8 days

26.

17-11-2007 to 20-11-2007

4 days

27.

26-11-2007

1 day

28.

3-12-2007 to 12-12-2007

10 days

29.

20-12-2007 to 22-12-2007

3 days

30.

From 26-12-2007 till today

250 days continuously absent

TOTAL

341 DAYS

1216 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2021/ASHADHA 26, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The absence in total of 341 days for which he was issued show cause notices on as many as on five

occasions, details given as follows in para-6 of the written statement:-

S. No.

Notice No.

Date

Notice No. Freeganj/006

Dated 17-4-2007

Notice No. Freeganj/054

Dated 13-8-2007

Notice No. Freeganj/112

Dated 31-1-2008

Notice No. Freeganj/070

Dated 26-7-2008

Notice No. Freeganj/44

Dated 18-6-2008

He was issued charge sheet dated 1-9-2008 in this respect. The charge sheet was sent to his residential

address, but he did not turn up, hence the inquiry proceeded ex-parte. After collection of evidence, the Inquiry

Office held the workman guilty of habitual, unauthorized and willful absence which is misconduct in Bi-Partite-

Settlement and keeping in view the length of his services, he was compulsory retired without any benefits.

Accordingly, it is the case of the Management that the inquiry is proper and legal, charges have been proved and

the sentence is also proportionate to the charges.

My learned Predecessor framed a preliminary issue which is as follows:-

“Whether the inquiry conducted against the workman is proper and lega?”.

Hence answered it against the workman, vide order dated 16-2-2017, holding the inquiry proper and

legal. His this order is part of this Award. Thereafter, following three additional issues were framed by my

learned Predecessor.

1. ‘‘Whether the misconduct alleged against workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?”

2. ‘‘Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed against the workman is legal and

proper.?

3. ‘‘If so, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

I have heard arguments of both the sides and have perused the entire material available on record.

ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO. 1:-

The charges against the workman is of habitual, willful and unauthorized absence for the period as

mentioned earlier in this judgment. The inquiry conducted though ex-parte against the workman, has been held

legal and proper. From the perusal of the inquiry papers, proved during the inquiry the proceedings, it comes

out that copy of attendance register, branch memo’s of different dates were filed and proved along with the

Management witness Sh. M.D.Gupta, Sh. S.K.Jain and Sh. J.S. Pandey supported the charge during the inquiry

before the Inquiry Officer. On perusal of their on record statements and documents as referred to above, leads

to a conclusion regarding proof of charges, hence the charges against the workman are held proved on the basis

of the Inquiry Report.

Additional Issue No. 1 is decided accordingly.

9-ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO. 2:-

Now taking up the second issue, in the instant case the Inquiry Officer held the workman guilty of

habitual, unauthorized and willful absence which is misconduct in Bi-Partite-Settlement and keeping in view the

length of his services, he was compulsory retired without any benefit. Hon’ble the Apex Court and Hon’ble the

High Court in various Judgments has been pleased to observe as under:-

Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about

the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:

“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute

its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it

would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to

reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare

cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.”

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 17, 2021/आषाढ़ 26, 1943

1217

In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:

“6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed

by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion

that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the

relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed

earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of

an discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment which the delinquent

person concerned works.”

In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon’ble Apex Court on review of a

long line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law summarized

the legal position in the following words:

“11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not

interfere with the administrators’ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural

imp0ropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in

defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the

court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him

and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of

judicial review is judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not

the decision.

12.

To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the

appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for

interference. Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose

appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof.”

In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal

position as follows:

“8.

……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of

disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds

the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.”

11.

In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court stated

that:

“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to

the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.’’

12.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia

M. Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that

“The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High

Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority,

and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such

discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the

conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the

disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of

misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the

position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be

maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would

not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.

13.

Hon’ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 721 has observed that:

“7.

It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the

evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the

material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on

evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be

grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, the courts will not

interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental inquiries, except where such findings are

based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see

whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or findings, on the

material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if

principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be

arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.”

1218 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2021/ASHADHA 26, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14.

On the basis of the aforesaid settled principles of law, the punishment of compulsory retirement cannot

be held excessive to the charges, hence holding the punishment proportionate to the charge, the Additional

Issue No. 2 is decided against the workman.

ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO. 3:-

15.

On the basis of the findings recorded in Additional Issue No. 1 and No. 2, the workman is held entitled

to no relief. Issue No. 3 is also decided accordingly.

16.

On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

The action of the management of Bank of India in imposing the punishment of compulsory

retirement on Shri Devendra Mehar, Ex-Sub Staff w.e.f. 29-12-2009 is held to be legal and

proper.

The workman is held entitled to no relief.

No order as to costs.

17.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as

per rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2021

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

iatkc us'kuy cSad ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 9@2018½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-07-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012@90@2017-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2021

S.O. 455.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 9/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National

Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.07.2021.

[No. L-12012/90/2017 - IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/9/2018

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Sunil Kumar Raikwar

S/o Narayandas Raikwar

R/o MIG-17, Swagat Bungalow,

Nayapura, Kolar Road,

Bhopal (M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The Circle Head,

Punjab National Bank,

Zonal Office, HRD,

Arera Hills,

Bhopal (M.P.)

…Management

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 17, 2021/आषाढ़ 26, 1943

1219

AWARD

(Passed on this 22^ndday of –June 2021)

As per letter dated 6-2-2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference

is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-12012/90/2017-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Bhopal in

terminating the services of workman Shri Sunil Kumar Raikwar S/o Shri Narayandas Raikwar w.e.f.

11-9-2011 is just & proper? if not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ? .”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

The workman did appear and file his vakalatnama but never filed any statement of claim and absented

himself thereon, hence the case was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte against the workman vide order dated

22-3-2021. The Management filed its statement of claim and affidavit of its witness Satyanarayana in evidence.

None appeared at the state of argument from the side of the workman, hence Shri A.K.Shashi, learned

counsel for the Management was heard by me. I have gone through the record as well.

As it is the case of the Management in its written statement of defence, the workman was never

appointed as per rules against any vacancy rather he was a daily wager engaged at local level according to

immediate need and was paid on daily basis. He was not appointed against any vacancy. He was free to come

and leave the work according to his wishes. He was never in continuous engagement for a period of more than

240 days, in the year preceding the date of his dis-engagement; hence his dis-engagement is not against law.

Accordingly, Management has prayed for answering the reference against the workman.

The Management has supported this version by affidavit of its witness.

The reference is the point for determination in the case in hand.

It is settled principle of law that the burden to prove its case is on the person who alleges it, hence in

the case in hand also the burden to prove his engagement on continuous basis for a period of 240 days in the

year preceding the date of his dis-engagement is on the workman. He has not filed any statement of claim nor

has he filed any evidence in support, hence holding that the case of the workman is not proved, the dis-

engagement of the workman is held not against law and the workman is held entitled to no benefits. The

reference deserves to be answered accordingly.

On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The action of the management of Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Bhopal in terminating

the services of workman Shri Sunil Kumar Raikwar S/o Shri Narayandas Raikwar w.e.f.

11-9-2011 is held to be legal & justified.

B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as

per rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2021

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

iatkc us'kuy cSad ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 10@2018½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-07-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012@91@2017-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

1220 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2021/ASHADHA 26, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2021

S.O. 456.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National

Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.07.2021.

[No. L-12012/91/2017-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/10/2018

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Mukesh Ahirwar

S/o Naval Singh Ahirwar

H.No.A-18,Shiv Shakti Nagar,

Chhola Road,

Bhopal (M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The Circle Head,

Punjab National Bank,

Zonal Office, HRD,

Arera Hills,

Bhopal (M.P.)

… Management

AWAR D

(Passed on this 22^NDday of June 2021)

As per letter dated 15-2-2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per

Notification No. L-12012/91/2017-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Bhopal in

terminating the services of workman Shri Mukesh Ahirwar, S/o Shri Naval Singh Ahirwar w.e.f.

11-9-2011 is just & proper? if not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ? .”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

The workman did appear and file his vakalatnama but never filed any statement of claim and absented

himself thereon, hence the case was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte against the workman vide order dated

22-3-2021. The Management filed its statement of claim and affidavit of its witness Satyanarayana in evidence.

None appeared at the state of argument from the side of the workman, hence Shri A.K. Shashi, learned